About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

California 5, Hurtado 3, Derek Smith 2, Hwang 1, Expresso Subito Llc 1, Honda 1, Dpw 1, Fung 1, Patricia Boyd 1, Me 1, Mr. Smith 1, San Francisco 1, Lazarus 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 22, 2013
    4:00 - 4:30am PDT  

4:00am
going on. this truck wants to be in front of an existing restaurant. the applicant said 84 second, but the dpw says 92, so we have a conflict of where this truck is actually going to be parked. we found that the health department that it is says it includes prepackaged food instead of just coffee. so what is it? where is it? what is it doing? where is it going to go? no one knows. the ordinance was revised to establish food and underserved area, this is not an underserved area, thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, debbie, representing (inaudible) and i just wanted to go over a couple
4:01am
of things. first of all as it is noted that the health department has been called up several times and the measurements they are concerned that they have independently verified them and okay with the measurements. second of all we have gone through this a number of times but the code, my client has tried his best to comply with all of the code requirements. he has done his best to do that. he is complying with the policy as it exists now. we understand that there may be changes in the future. he understand that this is the policy, and he went through an entire procedure for that. i understand that there there are notifications questions, as to notification, but that nobody has been affected by it because on the walking distance from the store, even if it were done wrong and we spoked to the media services after that and he said that he has done dozens of notifications exactly in that same manner, but the 300 foot walking from the truck is the same no matter what. >> thank you.
4:02am
>> is there any other public comment? >> patricia boyd and it is not on that subject. there are several things that are going to come in front of you in the near future, and one of them is this changing to rental units into a house and the planning department has to have 65 percent of the second one in the basement. well the way that they are doing it is to eliminate the walkway from the backyards. so that there is no second means of egress coming on these buildings. and from the back, and this is something that is going to be coming up loud and clearly pretty soon. and another thing that is coming up is formula retail and there has been some new legislation here that will straighten some of it out.
4:03am
but what the formerly retail people are doing are hiding some of their businesses until after they get a certain number of permits. and there will be appeals on this. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i just have one, if someone can clarify for me this. this schedule of the location says that it is the truck is going to be parked at 84 second street. and simultaneously there is a truck located 49 feet northwest of second street. this if you measure it, this actually builds up to be not 84 second street, this is 96nd street. so where exactly is the truck going to be parked is the
4:04am
question over here, it is very ambiguous. the process has not been completed properly. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? under item number one? >> okay, seeing none, we will move on to item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions? commissioners? >> seeing none, we will move to item 3, which is the adoption of the minutes for the board's meeting of march 6, 2013. >> entertain a motion? >> so moved. >> if you could call the roll, please? >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to adopt the march 6th minutes. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0,
4:05am
and the minutes are adopted. >> so we will take item number four which is a special item. commissioners, representatives from the department of public health tobacco free department contacted the board for an opportunity to make a short presentation to you on the work that they do to dissuade owners to sell to miners. we have derek smith from the department of public health and given him ten minutes to address the board and of course he will be available to answer any questions that you might have. >> there you go. >> good evening, commissioners, derek smith, the department of public health, the tobacco free project and i hope to speak to you on a non-controversial issues the number of sales to tobacco to minors. i have given you some, as well
4:06am
as some that we offer from the department of health. there is a lot to be said and i will spare you that and let you read it. and just a base line to let you know that tobacco is the number one cause of death on earth. since we are talking about the matter of sales of tobacco to mine minors, keeping down the impacts of alcohol use verses tobacco, it is the number one cause of every cancer in fact. additionally there is research that shows to proximity to tobacco is related to youth. and it shows that schools that are surrounded have students that smoke at a higher rate.
4:07am
>> additionally, the sales to minors has decreased, as they introduced a permit ordinance in 2003 and began to implement that through enforcement practices which i will talk about in 2004. so, as you see, this is just kind of an overview of graphic of sales to minors in san francisco, as you see, 2003, 2004, there, is when the ordinance that makes every retailer apply for the city and the department of public health for the privilege and the opportunity. and when the enforcement began with the police department and you see there is a dip in sales to minors and we keep it around at 12.8 percent at the moment. the state has had a drop from 37, selling one out of three, more than one out of three to right now at the state level
4:08am
only 8.7 percent are illegally selling when there are inspections. the goal must be to reduce san francisco to the average, that is when you include the entire state, and every community, at this point we are at 12.8 percent. and so an overview, and so just you know that you have a visual of tobacco outlets there are 1100 at most any given point, and this indicates that these blue dots indicate all of the retailers. just to give you a idea of
4:09am
where our kids are sold tobacco. >> here are the red cross and now those are places where we have documented in the last three years that the retailers sold to a minor and they sold to 15 or 16 years of age. all of these red dots that you see, these are instances in which a retailer for various reasons but ended up selling to a minor in sort of put that sales profit before the health of our community. so, very briefly, an overview of why tobacco sales are a crime. this is in some ways may be sort of obvious, but the reason that there is a concern of sales to people under of 18 that is when the young people become addicted and become connected to tobacco. and as you see, i won't speak for the commissioners and i am not certain of your age but i am well over 26 years old and anyone who reaches the grand old age of 26 is tremendously unlikely to ever become a smoker. 96 percent of smokers start before the age of 26. and in fact, 64 percent of
4:10am
smokers start before the age of 18. as you can imagine this is a sweet spot for young people to access tobacco and begin utilizing it. one other kind of sad point in tobacco use is that young people often think that they are invisible and they can quit when they want and it is just a cool thing that i am doing for the moment but in fact, three out of 14 age smokers continue to smoke into adulthood. so they think that they can shake t but it is at that period when they become addicted and end up becoming life-long users. and for these reasons and many more, in 2003, the san francisco board of supervisors passed an ordinance, requiring a tobacco retail permit for every tobacco retailer for the privilege of selling tobacco products in our city. at this point, they stated san francisco has a substantial interest to promote in compliance with the youth sales law in protecting our children from illegally obtaining tobacco. so just the background of why
4:11am
this law exists. there is a lot of laws that exist, and one that i would really like to highlight is you see the old time law book here is the reason that a retailer if a clerk sells to a minor they get a ticket and it is issued a ticket and a fine that is associated with it and it is for code 308 and a violation of a law that you cannot provide tobacco to a person under 18 years of age. and this is a new law? no. you see this book, it is actually from 1906. so the code, 308 you cannot provide tobacco to a minor, and it has been on the books i think from maybe the 1880s or something, but it was in the 1906 version for your interest. there are a lot of laws that have taken effect since then that reinforce the idea that it is illegal to sell to minors. so, these slides, i cannot necessarily read, but, many members of our comment can, the
4:12am
reason that we put these on is that we understand that many people who work in retail establishments and perhaps even own them may not be familiar with the 108-plus law in the state of california. and so we do education, from the department of public health in four languages. we sent out in arabic chinese and spanish and english and i will talk about education next. retailers know this law and well informed that it is illegal to sell to minors, virtually know this law that i encounter. the san francisco department of public health provides a mailing every single year for the last seven years to all 1100 retailers, with all of these items in your packet you will see a copy of it in these four different languages. in fact we just sent ours out this year, at the first week of march. so just so you know, all retailers right now have just received the informational packet talking about sales to minors, and in addition when they applied to the state and the board of equalization to
4:13am
the tobacco sort of handling license and they received the education and there is an agency that some of it comes from which is an enforcement agency that does inspections locally as well. there is a lot of opportunities to be educated about this and we at the department of public health try to do a great deal of prevention to be sure that everyone knows about the law. why is the city actively enforces? there is reasons related to health and addiction, and the stores that break the law and sell to youth are making the profit at the advantage of the law abiding stores and the advantage of of our young people in the community and they are creating an unfair business environment, the ten or 15 or 20 percent of the retailers who do choose to break the law and sell to minors, they are receiving all of the business of minors and young people who are seeking tobacco know exactly which stores to go to, so surveys of san francisco unified school district students showed that 58 percent of 11th graders said
4:14am
that it is very easy to access tobacco, that it is easy to access tobacco, i will not include the very word. so there is a responsibility, as a said the tobacco sales are a privilege that are offered to people and retailers and the city of san francisco according to this ordinance. responsibilities come with that opportunity including the responsibility to conduct business in a legal and non-harmful way. the burden of legal sales relies on the store owner who must train all employees and is responsible for all activity that will occur at the business whether it is related to sexual harassment or the sale of drugs, and that is just a copy of 308. so if you will bear with me i would like to go through the activity and i am a health educator by training. this is a copy of a driver's license and i think that you received some information about
4:15am
these new driver licenses and they were issued in 2010. the first thing if you imagine, you are a retailer who looking at a license and like to see id and you and i have licenses that go horizontally, if you are under 21, you have a license that is vertical. if they have to turn it sideways, that is a red flag that they are under 21. there are concerns about calculation and how difficult it is to figure out an age. it is a simple because there is a blue strip that says this person will not turn 18 until the year blank, and this card it says 2011. so, all you need to know is what year it presently is in order to identify whether this person is a minor or not. in the case of the decoy operations that the police department use they use 15 and 16-year-old children and so presently in this year, these licenses will always stay in
4:16am
the blue bar, 2015, 2016 or 17. and so any person who is asking for identification should clearly know that date is in the future and that this person is not yet 18. no calculation is required. briefly, the police department protocol for this, to make sure that you have a background on why these cases make their way to you. age or 15 or 16. they must provide their valid id card if it is interested. so if the clerk says that i need to see your id, they give their actual identification card it is not pretending, it says their average age and that will be 18 in, 2015, and they have to tell the truth if they are asked if they are 18. and they will state, no i am 16. and a police inspector witnesses every transaction in the store. so there is always an inspector physically watching the transaction occur and that is why it is often not contested that the transaction occurred.
4:17am
just for your information, the san francisco police department visits 450 randomly selected stores every 18 months and that is just logistics and funding. and so as far as suspensions assume thating they sell to a minor t goes through the process to the health department and the health director has the legal authority, according to the ordinance, the permit ordinance to suspend the tobacco sales permit and the authority as you know is to suspend for up to 90 days for the first violation which is a pretty rare occurrence as you see from the su pensions that come your way. just a little bit of overview, since 2005, there have been 500 police citations, in the inspections the police department has done in the last 8 years, 481 stores have sold to a minor and have received a pc308 ticket for that violation and then there have been 356 suspensions of licenses for various periods of time as well
4:18am
as appeals that have made their way to the board to this board, a portion of those, that is only about 21 percent, that end up at the appeal level from those that are suspended. they choose to appeal the decision, but kind of keeping in mind that all of the suspended businesses sold to a minor and so that the same crime occurred in every intense choosing to appeal for various reasons. so just an overview for you also, looking at kind of some metrics of appeals and just the last three years. it is good to have a consistent system of dealing with it as a deterrent factor, i have witnessed a few of these meetings but in a lot of cases there is a protest about a
4:19am
variance or a zoning concern that in the cases that tobacco retailers come to you with a suspension of the tobacco license, a crime is already been committed it has been completed and there usually is contestation of that. retailer does not say that it did not happen because there was an inspector observing it. so the licensing is effective as you saw, and really that was not of the board of supervisors in establishing the law. when the tobacco license is suspended it may be a discomfort and have to tell the regular customers that we can't tell at the moment, that is not just seizing the regular income, that it might loose the
4:20am
permit and lose the issues of making money. >> in the final conclusion, the application of the law ensures our progress for no illegal sales, we are sthaogt for a bench smart of less than 8.7 percent and we would certainly love to see 0 as it is a law. if you have any questions. >> excellent presentation, mr. smith. >> i have a question just and not intended to go into it. >> sure. >> if you know the answer. how are you measuring the reduction of the sales? if you are shooting for an 8.7 percent, how is the department determining how they are getting this information. >> we do the random samples. but the department of health works with the police department and we create a random sample of approximately
4:21am
450 stores to be visited every, it is about every 18 months and so we come up with kind of an annual, 18 month, and that is based on the random sample. which includes all supervisoral districts and all substation districts but it is randomized in such a way that it will go to 450 stores selected randomly. >> okay. >> it is consistent with how the state does a very similar, you know, inspection across california. is the san francisco enforcement, are the enforcement protocols similar? or taylored off of what the state does? >> they are virtually identical. the state also uses 15 and 16-year-olds and both insurance insure that young people have a valid id, for example. a lot of particularly in san francisco a lot of them don't drive and would not have a place to park a car or have the means to operate a car.
4:22am
so in many cases they would not have a valid california id and so the police department assures that they have one. >> i have nothing further. >> is it your opinion that every first violation should receive a 90-day suspension. >> i have no specific opinion. >> is it a greater deterrent? >> the best practices show that suspensions of license is the best deturant. some communities look at assessment of fines and that sort of thing, but in most cases those are not a deterrent, they are considered a cost of doing business and they do not result in the lowering. they do not result in retraining the staff or the owner saying that this is never going to happen again, let get on board and institute whatever processes we need to insure that this is not, that we are not repeat sales people >> but at the same time, many of them are you know, in our
4:23am
experience, we do find that through sales from year to year. >> okay, but in your mind is there any difference between a 45-day suspension verses a 90-day suspension? >> i don't have information, to answer that, necessarily. 25 to 30 day has been effective. and that is kind of the standard that it seems that san francisco is being utilizing. >> okay. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> questions? >> yes, perhaps a last comment. the number of articles that have been coming out on the regular basis that the over all tobacco conception within the general population has also decreased. is there a correlation between that decrease and the decrease mentioned in your program? >> i believe so. yes, i think that every level, all communities in california are working to fight youth access to tobacco and in a variety of ways. and so effective programs like
4:24am
that which the san francisco police department is enforcing and that the environmental health department which administers the tobacco retail licenses, that this sort of moving forward with these and taking these as a serious issue just as the board takes it as a serious issue, really does seem to be effective and that is why you saw the decrease that you saw from 2003 on ward and that the folks made a stand in san francisco and stated that sales of minors of tobacco is not acceptable. >> sorry, i have one more question, if you are done commissioner. >> so given that the statute seems to be based on knowledge that the person that sales must have knowledge or know under reasonable circumstances that they are selling to a minor. a part from the mailing that you send out that is in several languages, what other efforts has the department made to address any potential language barriers when you are doing public education around this issue?
4:25am
>> there are a variety of... i mentioned there is a slide that mentions efforts at the state level as well. i don't have 100 percent evidence about it but i would state that it is very unlikely that someone who sells tobacco does not know that it is illegal to sell to an 18-year-old. because 18-year-olds know it and the general public is aware of that and this is not a new rule. i don't have a survey to back it up. but i don't believe that is particularly the barrier, the knowledge about it. sometimes it may be a matter of training, but again, the retailer is the one who takes out the permit and takes on then the responsibility of selling in a proper way as the ordinance states in a way that is not harmful to the community in particularly to the kids, that is the reason that we are most concerned. >> okay, thank you. >> that was very helpful. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.
4:26am
>> okay, so we have already announced that item number 5 was withdrawn and will not be heard and we will move to item 6 which is appeal 12-126. second street mer khents verses department of public works bureau of street use mapping at 150 california street and 84, second street protesting the issuance on september 28th, 2012 to expresso subito llc, the sale of espresso drinks, this is merit number 1 1 mff0167 and the hearing was held and closed on january 16, 2013 and the matter for fur thir consideration and it was moved for hurtado to participate in the final vote. >> i wanted to find out from you whether you would like to move right into deliberation or whether you have other questions that you want? >> i don't have any questions, i am ready to move into
4:27am
deliberations. i want to put on the record that i was present at the original november 14, 2012, hearing whereas the permit was upheld by operation of law. i was also present at the december 12, 2012 hearing where we granted the rehearing request. i was absent on january 16th, but i have watched the rather long video of those proceedings as well as read the hundreds of pages that were submitted on both sides. >> okay. >> i am ready to make my vote. >> okay. so if someone wants to make a motion, then a motion can be made. i don't think that there was a motion made last time it was just a straw vote. >> correct.
4:28am
>> >> everybody is looking at me. >> i'm looking at commissioner hurtado. >> okay. >> you feel like you need to speak, or... >> well, yes. why don't i go ahead and do that. >> so i suppose that i should start by saying that i stand by my original vote on this issue of november of 2012, nothing that i have heard and in fact the passage of time has actually convinced me more that that was the correct vote in my opinion. the notice issue, i believes that been cured by subsequent hearing, subsequent briefings, subsequent public comment and everyone that i believe has had
4:29am
an adequate community to weigh in on this permit. i believe that the dpw exercises its discretion in interpreting the statute in a way that is reasonable and the concerns that i have heard from the public in terms of excuse me, what the statute may or may not say, i think should be adequately addressed with the board of supervisors and it is our job to try to interpret the statute as it is written. excuse me. and i believe that we have attempted to do that in a fair way and in a consistent way. so i would vote to up hold the permit on that basis. and so moved. >> okay, is there any other commissioner comments? >> should we call